[6bone] RFC2772 rewrite

[Nicolas DEFFAYET]

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:23, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Pim van Pelt wrote:
> 
> > * Should we seperate the 6BONE cloud from the production IPv6 cloud ? This
> > is not really an RFC2772 issue, but does come to mind.
> 
> > ... I have heard sounds of operators filtering out 3ffe::/16 due to its
> > impact on general availablility of IPv6 to their customers. This
> > deserves discussion!

http://www.noc.easynet.net/network/public/peering-ipv6.html

---
Route Filtering

We apply the following filters to announcements: 

Block Minimal prefixlength Maximal prefixlength
2001::/16 29 40
2002::/16 16 16
3FFE::/16 not announced
---


What's the best ?

- have a tunnel peer with a ISP who use production address
- have a native peer with a ISP who use 6bone address

I prefer have a native peer with a ISP who use 6bone address !

The address type (production or 6bone) should NOT be a peer criteria.
Only allocation size (sTLA, pTLA, NLA) can be a peer criteria.

You can have a bad peering with a peer who use production address and
have a good peering with a peer who use 6bone address.

> That doesn't make nearly as much sense as filtering out routes
> that come via 3ffe::/16 sites, or simply giving these routes a
> much lower preference so traffic always goes via production
> sites, if there is a route via production sites.
> 
> I'm all for some kind of separation between the experimental
> and the production side of the ipv6 universe, especially if it
> means that I can keep ipv6 connectivity in the near future,
> when my ISP doesn't have ipv6 yet, but my own applications do
> rely on it.

What's a production site ?

- a ISP who have RIR address (2001::/16)
- a ISP who have native peering
- a ISP who do commercial activities

Many ISP who use production address (2001::/16) claim to do experimental
stuff...

Best Regards,

Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware
NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/
FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/